1807 Bridges Map of New York City (1871 reissue)

To even the most seasoned New Yorker the city south of 14th street can seem an almost alien city. Before the 1811 Commissioners Plan which created the NYC grid as we know it the city evolved more organically as cities had for millennial. Take a walk through Wall street and if it wasn’t for the forest of skyscrapers you would feel like you were navigating a European town. Downtown Boston has a similar feel as these two areas developed at the same time in the same organic ways.

But in 1811 these two cities took very different paths for their future growth. New York had a 13 mile island it had to tame and in 1811 the famous Commissioners Plan was adopted to regulate development by creating an monotonous grid of 155 streets and 16 avenues. Boston, due to its much more constrained geography, developed more like large puzzle pieces being added as the marshes and bays around the downtown area were filled, each with its own unique grid that didn’t conform to a greater plan (Bulfinch Triangle, South End, Back Bay).

An 1894 map of downtown Boston showing the original shoreline with land that has been added.

So when I discovered this peculiar map of lower Manhattan on Reddit’s Map Porn section I had to do a double take. Instead of the grid we know today the drafter of this map, published 4 years before the Commissioners Plan, proposed growing the city of New York in the same way that it had developed previously; that is to say large land holders would subdivide their farms (usually when the patriarch died) and would lay out new streets as they saw fit and connecting them to other streets at odd angles.

From the Wikipedia Commons:

An interesting and unusual map, this is William Bridges’ 1807 revival or the failed 1801 Mangin-Goerck Plan. Those who know New York’s shoreline will pause at the perfect blocks and ridged angles of this plan no more accurate today than it was in 1801 when Mangin first presented it. Mangin, a talented French architect, and Goerck, an established New York Surveyor, were commissioned by the Common Council of New York to prepare a new regulatory map of the city. Though Goerck passed away before the plan could be completed, Mangin finished the plan on a grand scale, re-envisioning New York City in his own image. Mangin even added streets such as Mangin Street and Goerck Street which would have been submerged under the East River had they actually existed (as a side note another of Mangin’s Street’s, South Street, did eventually appear). The Mangin-Goerck plan went far beyond the Common Council’s dreams of an administrative plan and, due to its inclusion of “intended improvements”, new streets, and idealized block structure, enjoyed a short lifespan. It is curious then that in 1807 William Bridges, the talented City Surveyor who, in 1811, laid New York’s famous grid structure, resurrected and pirated the Mangin-Goerck Plan, attaching his own name to it. It was a private venture that led Bridges to piracy. He was commissioned by Dr. Samuel Mitchell to provide a map to illustrate Mitchell’s Picture of New York , a travel guide intended for foreign tourist. Perhaps Bridges chose the Mangin plan simply because, as a failed city plan, there were few obstacles to his use of it, but we do pity the hapless tourists who leapt into the east river in pursuit of Mangin Street. Though originally issued in 1807 for S. Mitchell’s Picture of New York , this example is a reissue prepared by John Hardy, Clerk of the Common Council, for the 1871 edition of the Manual of the Corporation of New York.

Like many maps and plans from this era it’s hard to tell what is real and what isn’t. Many city boosters published maps making their city look larger and more developed than rival cities even though the streets the maps depicted weren’t even cut yet! The red line on this version shows the dividing line between what is built today and what Bridges was proposing.

There is, however, one constant, a thorn in the side of the 1811 Commissioners Plan which is with us today: Stuyvesant Street. The large section north of Morris St on the 1807 map was the estate of Peter Stuyvesant, the famous Dutch Director-General who had the unfortunate privilege of surrendering the city to the English when the population of New Amsterdam refused to defend the city after his tyrannical rule (and you though Bloomberg was bad!). When Stuyvesant died the land which is today part of Gramercy, Stuyvesant Town (hence the name) and the East Village were given to his heirs who decided to subdivide and sell the land. The 1807 Bridges map shows this long forgotten plan. A few streets were laid but only three buildings were actually built before the city adopted the Commissioners Plan and demanded that the Stuyvesant heirs conform to the new plan. These three buildings still stand along a two block stretch of Stuyvesant St: St Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery, the Hamilton-Fish House at 21 Stuyvesant St, and 44 Stuyvesant St (built in 1795).

The Stuyvesant plan envisioned a large wealthy neighborhood with streets running true North-South and East-West. It also (whether in the original plan or added later by Goerck) shows the addition of the newest urban design trend: London Squares. These public or private gardens offered it’s wealthy neighbors a refuge from the turbulent city. At this point in New York’s evolution there was only one existing such square, Hudson Sq (today’s St. John’s Park) which was a real estate development on the west side by Trinity Church (which historically took too long to develop as the wealthy residents of New York chose to settle along Broadway). These squares would have most likely been private and entry was only given to the neighbors, each with their own key. Gramercy Park is the only remaining park like this in New York.

Close up view of the new Squares and Crescents proposed.

Two of these small parks, labeled as “Crescents” on the 1807 map, would have been more for show rather than for relaxing. Chester Sq in the South End of Boston is a perfect example of what was proposed.

A 1938 map of the South End of Boston showing city parks and squares laid out similar to the 1807 Bridge’s Map.

While the four squares in the Stuyvesant plan were never realized they live on today in almost the same place thanks to a visionary developer Samuel Ruggles who famously developed Gramercy Park, Union Sq, and had influence in the development of Stuyvesant Sq and Madison Sq.

I’ve created this side-by-side comparison so you can see how the two grids are different but contain the same elements. Two things really stand out: the placement of Hamilton Sq is almost identical to the modern day Stuyvesant Sq and the East River was filled in about the same amount as proposed in 1807, just conforming to the new grid.

In order for it to be recognisable as related to the Tube map, each road, as they’re known, is drawn either vertically, horizontally or at 45º. You’ll notice that on the Tube map, the only places where two lines cross each other at 90º are where there is an interchange — and since there are no interchanges in a depot, all the roads which intersect are at 45º to each other. I also kept the orientation of the depot as closely as possible; if the depot runs north to south, it runs top to bottom on a portrait postcard.

You can see them on the Drawn By Day blog and order them at their store.

Go to the main page vanshnookenraggen.com to check it out.

For all you who missed the Kickstarter campaign now you can order your very own NYC Subway Infographic Poster online! Thanks again for everyone who supported the project.

If anyone still has issues with ordering please email me at info [at] vanshnookenraggen.com.

Artists rendering of the Inner Belt Expressway through Cambridge, MA

I had a nice phone interview with Eric Jaffe from The Atlantic Cities (a website I fell in love with the second I found it) last week. He had discovered many of the maps I have made over the years and wanted to write a quick article on what I do. He was really cool and interested in the maps I make and I have to say it was cool to talk with someone who is into this same crazy thing. If you have read anything on this site before you’ve seen the maps but the article gives you a nice little back story about me and why I do this.

Mapping the Almost-Real City

History is filled with city plans that, for one reason or another, never became anything more. Some of them find their way into archives or museums. Some of them still await funding or completion or destruction in a sort of civic purgatory. And some of them are revived, at least in a digital sense, by hobbyist mapmaker Andrew Lynch.

The 28-year-old Lynch posts an eclectic array of urban design work at his website, Vanshnookenraggen. (The name is a nonsense word he made up in high school and used because he figured — correctly, obviously — that the domain would be available.) His creations over the years include a Google Map rendering that depicts the unbuilt Lower Manhattan Expressway and a hypothetical subway map of Boston.

I have no idea why I didn’t post this in July when it came out. About a year ago I accompanied a Columbia Journalism student, Brian Eha, on a couple explores as he was writing his master thesis on the subject of Urban Exploring. Usually explorers are pretty tight lipped but since I’m not as active as I used to be I’m more open to talking with others about it. Brian and I explored the Glenwood Power Station in Yonkers and the Freedom Tunnel under Riverside Dr. in Manhattan. I posted the pictures from Glenwood here but the Freedom Tunnel was too dark when we went to get any good shots, though I have posted a couple here. The article is a great read and I was happy to help.

In New York City, when night falls, a number of doors and less obvious passageways open onto another city. One of these is the mouth of the Amtrak tunnel that runs under Manhattan’s Riverside Park. In December 2011, after five months of living full-time in the mundane city, I need a vacation, a respite not so much from the beloved city herself but from what cities increasingly consist of: light, noise, human and automobile traffic, crowded streets and stores and subway cars, trash and blackened gum on the sidewalks, the appalling tons of flotsam that wash up around us. For nearly half a year the only vistas have been vistas of human habitation. And so one cold night I take it upon myself to walk for nearly 60 blocks through the underground waste of the Riverside Tunnel, known colloquially as the Freedom Tunnel after Chris “Freedom” Pape, a graffiti artist whose murals made it famous among a certain subset of the population for whom spending time in dark tunnels is not unusual, and is even considered fun. My companion this night, Andrew Lynch, is one of this number, young and blond like me, but taller and less muscular, lanky with an easy stride. By day he sells real estate on the Upper West Side. By night—not every night, and increasingly fewer nowadays, but some nights even now—he’s an urban explorer.

Read the rest of it at Outside Online.

But when these old tracks are ripped down what becomes of them? I’ve written a lot over the years about the politics and planning when an elevated subway gets torn down. I recently came across a great documentary almost 20 years old that follows the steel used in the Washington St Orange Line from demolition to rebirth as a highway bridge in Arizona.

Conservation of Matter: The Fall and Rise of Boston’s Elevated Subway

This documentary follows the journey of 100,00 tons of steel from the Boston Elevated Subway, which was erected in 1898, demolished in 1987, then shipped eight thousand miles away to be melted re-formed into steel bars. These then cross the ocean again, where they are ultimately re-fabricated into a remarkable new structure in a surprising location. Workers, historians, preachers, politicians, on lookers, artists, children, architects, and astrophysicists on two continents address the significance of the process as it unfolds. Winner: Editing Award, 1996 New England Film/Video Festival; Audience Choice and Judge’s Grand Prize, 1997 U.S. Super 8mm Film/Video Festival.

Conservation of Matter: The Fall and Rise of Boston’s Elevated Subway from Tim K Wright on Vimeo.

This is a fantastic documentary which details the journey from elevated to scrap to highway via the people it touches along the way. I like the scientist there to remind us that, after all, these are just atoms that get moved around and we are the ones that infuse the steel with emotion and history. It is fitting that the steel once in an elevated train line would be used for a new highway bridge. Recycling at it’s finest.

The second film I came across looks at the 3rd Ave El in New York, not so much about the history of it’s demolition but more a rosy 1950s style look through a day in the life of an el train.

What I love about both movies is how we are the ones that have the connection to these structures. We use them everyday; they are a part of our lives. And just like us they have a life span which one day will end. They are just structures of steel and wood but they mean different things to different people. To the real estate developers they once meant a way to open up vast new lands for development but then switched to being a hindrance to growth. To the people living next to them they were either a nuisance that disturbed or a reliable form of entertainment. To the rider they were your way to work and home that provided a unique view of the city. While riding out to Astoria to see friends over the last 7 years I’ve always been transfixed by the ever changing skyline rolling past the window.

Atlantic Ave El demolition.

What I find interesting is as time went on people began to warm up to these structures and began to question their demolition much like the historic preservation movement took off. These structures were as historic as any great mansion on 5th Ave in their own right. As noted in the documentary about the Orange Line, it was the first all electric elevated subway in the world (New York’s and Chicago’s elevated lines started out as steam) and many of the stations (much like today) were products of architectural competitions. Wipe away the decades of dirt and grime and you begin to understand how revolutionary and revered these structures were.

Northampton Station at the Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine.

As more and more people have begun to rediscover the city, and as old industrial cities have begun to clean up their image, these old relics have suddenly been rediscovered. Elevated train lines that once covered neighborhoods with smoke and shadow have lain unused for so long that nature has taken over and we see them as the opposite of what they once were. Once an industrial backbone of Manhattan’s West Side the High Line connecting slaughter houses and warehouses the High Line has been rediscovered and reimagined as a world renowned park and has inspired cities with elevated rail lines from Chicago to Philadelphia to rethink these once maligned structures.

John Sloan “The City From Greenwich Village” 1922

Inspired by the map made by Bostonography for their post about the 100th anniversary of the Red Line in Boston opening (from Harvard Sq to Park St) I decided to see what the system would have looked like in the vernacular of the modern system map. The present system map didn’t come into being until the system-wide style modernization in 1967. Before then the maps didn’t use colors (or when they did it was different, as in the case where the “Red” line was colored blue). Lines were known by where they went, as in the Washington St subway or the Cambridge subway, or the Commonwealth Ave trolley.  The names were chosen (so the urban legend goes) because: Red Line went to Harvard (their school color being crimson), the Green Line went along the Emerald Necklace, the Orange Line went under Washington St which was in colonial times known as Orange St, and the Blue Line which went underwater.

So instead of just flashing a bunch of old maps that all look completely different, it made more sense to stick to one style and animate each year when the system was expanded (or contracted in many cases). I toyed with the idea of having text describing each change on the map but found that too confusing since you can’t control it for each slide (which I may create later).

Listed below are the changes to the system by year.  I refer to all lines by their present day names:

• 1897: The original subway opens for Green Line trolleys from Allston to Park St.
• 1898: Park St to North Station is opened with a trolley incline at North Station for all trolleys to the north of the city.
• 1901: Orange Line opens in four segments: Sullivan Sq to North Station (elevated), North Station to Dover St (Atlantic Ave elevated), Dover St to Dudley Sq (elevated), and a routing though the Green Line subway from North Station to Pleasant Ave.
• 1904: Blue Line opens as a trolley tunnel from Maverick Sq to Court Sq at Scollay Sq.
• 1906: Atlantic Ave station opens on the Blue Line.
• 1908: Washington St subway opens on the Orange Line, Green Line restored to trolley service.
• 1909: Orange Line extended from Dudley Sq to Forest Hills.
• 1912: Red Line from Harvard Sq to Park St opens; Green Line extended to Lechmere; Green St station on the Orange Line added.
• 1914: Green Line extended to Kenmore Sq.
• 1915: Red Line extended to Washington St.
• 1916: Red Line extended to South Station; Blue Line extended to Bowdoin Sq.
• 1917: Red Line extended to Broadway.
• 1918: Red Line extended to Andrew.
• 1919: Orange Line extended to Everett; Beach St station closes.
• 1921: Arlington station added to Green Line.
• 1922: Lechmere becomes terminal for Green Line trolleys.
• 1924: Blue Line converted from trolley to heavy rail.
• 1927: Red Line extended to Fields Corner.
• 1928: Red Line extended to Ashmont.; Atlantic Ave el service cut back, rush hour service only from Dudley to North Station (Dashed Line).
• 1929: Mattapan High Speed Line opens.
• 1932: Green Line extended past Kenmore with portals for Watertown, Boston College, and Cleveland Circle trolleys; Charles St station added to Red Line.
• 1938: Atlantic Ave elevated service ended.
• 1941: Huntington Ave subway opened on Green Line from Copley to Arborway.
• 1952: Blue Line extended to Suffolk Down.
• 1954: Blue Line extended to Wonderland.
• 1955: Science Park added to Green Line.
• 1959: Riverside Line added to Green Line from Kenmore Sq to Riverside.
• 1961: Pleasant St portal closed on Green Line.
• 1963: Adams Sq station closed; Scollay Sq changed to Government Center; Mechanics station changed to Prudential (All Green Line).
• 1965: Massachusetts station renamed Auditorium (Green Line).
• 1967: Orange Line stations renamed: Friend-Union > Haymarket, Milk-State/Devonshire > State, Washington/Summer-Winter > Washington, Boylston-Essex > Essex.
• 1969: Green Line Watertown “A” banch closed.
• 1971: Red Line extended from Andrew to Quincy Center.
• 1975: Orange Line Haymarket North extension opens from North Station to Malden Center; Charlestown elevated closed.
• 1977: Orange Line extended to Oak Grove.
• 1980: Red Line extended to Braintree.
• 1983: Quincy Adams station added to Red Line.
• 1984: Red Line extended from Harvard Sq to Davis Sq.
• 1985: Red Line extended to Alewife.
• 1987: Orange Line Southwest Corridor opened from Chinatown (renamed from Essex) to new Forest Hills; Washington St elevated closed; Green Line truncated to Heath St from Arborway.
• 1988: Columbia changed to JFK/UMass; added to Red Line Braintree branch.
• 1990: Auditorium renamed Hynes/ICA (Green Line)
• 2002: Silver Line Phase I: Washington St opens.
• 2004: Silver Line Phase II: South Boston to Logan Airport/City Point opened.
• 2009: Silver Line to City Point discontinued; Silver Line Dudley Sq to South Station opened.

The MBTA of today is hardly recognizable from the system a century ago.  This says a lot about the willingness of Boston to change and adapt itself to survive.  The many extensions from 1971 to 1987 were funded by transferring funds from canceled highway projects to mass transit.  During the 1990s the subway was neglected in favor of expanding commuter rail.  These suburban extensions were never paid for and are a huge reason the MBTA is steeped in so much debt today.

Now if you are anything like me (and obviously you are or you wouldn’t be here) you want to be able to take in each slide like it’s a fine scotch. I’ve created a gallery of each slide below so you can see each one and track the changes. The gallery viewer also has a slideshow function which works just like the animation above.

In 1910 a deal was brokered between the two companies which became known as the Dual Contracts. As the name suggests there were two contracts for subway expansion; the IRT was allowed to expand in Manhattan along 7th Ave and Lexington Ave, into Brooklyn along Fulton and Eastern Parkway, and into the Bronx. The BRT, soon to be reorganized as the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Co. (BMT) was allowed to extend its Brooklyn lines into Manhattan under Broadway, Delancey and Centre Sts, and over the soon to be finished Manhattan Bridge.

To facilitate a more planned expansion program the New York State Public Service Commission drew up a study to look at new lines throughout the city. Buried deep in the bowels of the New York Public Library I found this decaying relic and was able to make scans of the maps for each proposed line. Sifting through each proposal a picture of the city from a century ago begins to form. Unlike today where most of the traffic is headed to Midtown, these early plans still build for a city focused further downtown.

Trunk lines are planned along 1st, 3rd, Lexington, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Aves. When looking closer you see that the majority of service is focused on the 34th St area, then the retail and entertainment center of the city. Other lines run closer to the river then we would ever build today because back then these were the areas of industrial production and water-born trade. My favorite map by far is the Brooklyn Loop lines. I’ve read is subway histories that these were planned but it’s not until you see a map that you really get an idea of the scope these early subway planners were on. A vast interconnected network of subways was to criss-cross Bedford-Stuyvesant, connecting subways from Long Island City, Williamsburg, downtown Brooklyn, Crown Heights, and Bushwick.

Over next generation many of these plans would eventually be realized, some as described and others in heavily modified forms. Still others were left on the drawing room floor perhaps even unrealistic in their own day.

More images can be found in the Flickr set.

Map Reproduction Courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library.

Buy this Map on Zazzle starting at $12.95!

The Fenway has been my favorite neighborhood in Boston since I lived there while going to Wentworth Institute of Technology for 2 years. I loved how the area developed, a mix of apartment buildings and institutions. I had heard that the Back Bay street naming plan was supposed to be extended into the Fens (as the Back Bay Fens was supposed to be an extension of the Back Bay townhouse neighborhood). Obviously this never materialized and by the time the Fenway began to develop the living style shifted from townhouses to apartment flats.

For those that aren’t aware, the Back Bay was filled in beginning in the 1870s and laid out with an alphabetical street naming system: Arlington, Berkeley, Clarendon, Dartmouth, Exeter, Fairfield, Gloucester, and Hereford.

From Wikipedia:

West Fenway features streets named after Scottish cities and towns present in Robert Burn’s literary works; Peterborough, Kilmarnock, Queensbury. This was a result of influence by the Robert Burns (literary) Society influencing the city of Boston when a decision was made to simplify the original neighborhood plan by Frederick Law Olmsted’s office. As originally planned in 1894, the street naming system was to continue the system originating in the Back Bay of naming streets in alphabetical order. Where the Back Bay proper ends at Hereford Street, the Fenway was to continue Ipswich, Jersey, Kenyon (Kilmarnock), Lansdowne, Mornington, Nottingham, Onslow, Peterborough, Queensbury, Roseberry, Salisbury, Thurlow, Uxbridge, Vivian, Westmeath (Wellesley), X omitted, York, and Zetland.

This large map shows how Olmsted originally planned to lay out the West Fenway area. The area looks different today with large rectangular blocks. The original plan called for oddly laid out, naturalistic blocks that would have been much more interesting (especially the 6 sided square in the middle of the area).

Buy this Map on Zazzle starting at $12.95!

The complex is in Greenpoint, Brooklyn right on the East River. I really don’t know anything about it other than it seems to be used to store clothes at one point and is now very derelict. There are a couple businesses that still use the ground floors.

About a year after my explore I woke to find the complex engulfed in flames. They say that a bum started the fire looking for wire but we suspect that the owner burned it down to prevent it from being declared a landmark.

More images are on the Flickr page.

Now for sale at society6, these hauntingly beautiful prints from Urban Exploration New York: Greenpoint Terminal Market depict the now long gone warehouse complex that once dominated the waterfront of Greenpoint, Brooklyn. The abandoned section was destroyed by fire some years ago but two other buildings remain and house artists studios and lofts. These prints will look great hanging on your wall or going with you with your iPhone!

These prints are available as the following products:

• Fine art print on natural white, matte, ultra smooth, 100% cotton rag, acid and lignin free archival paper using an advanced digital dry ink method to ensure vibrant image quality. Custom trimmed with 1″ border for framing.
• Framed fine art print on natural white, matte, ultra smooth, 100% cotton rag, acid and lignin free archival paper using an advanced digital dry ink method to ensure vibrant image quality.
• Fine art print on bright white, fine poly-cotton blend, matte canvas using latest generation Epson archival inks. Individually trimmed and hand stretched museum wrap over 1-1/2″ deep wood stretcher bars. Includes wall hanging hardware.
• iPhone Case: Protect your iPhone (fits all iPhone 4 and 4S versions) with a one-piece, impact resistant, flexible plastic hard case featuring an extremely slim profile. Simply snap the case onto your iPhone for solid protection and direct access to all device features.
• iPhone, iPad Skins and Laptop: Skins are thin, easy-to-remove, vinyl decals for customizing your device. Skins are made from a patented material that eliminates air bubbles and wrinkles for easy application.

Prints are available at my Society6 page, http://society6.com/vanshnookenraggen/

I’ve just launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds to print these posters! Donate $25 and get a poster of your choice!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/vanshnookenraggen/nyc-subway-infographic-posters

The NYC Subway Diagram set is a new series of posters which show the lines of the subway as they are geographically.  Each line is geographically to scale to itself (meaning no two posters are at the same scale) and not abstracted.  The lines themselves are taken out of their context and set against a sold color background, the color of the line, and beautifully contrasted.  All stations are show; single stations as an open circle and transfer stations as a solid circle.  The the tops is the name of the trunk line and each branch line as well as the famous “bullets” with each train.  At the bottom is a short description with some history as well as statistics about how each line compares to the entire system.

At the time I was actually dismayed that these people were in my photographs; after all the point of urban exploration is to go where there are no people. It wasn’t until years later when the amazing High Line park opened and this once tranquil preserve became a world attraction, flooded daily with people, that I realized how lucky I was to capture that moment. These two people, out in the alien zone above the city, all alone, represent our spirit of adventure and discovery

More images can be found on the Flickr page.

Now for sale at society6, these hauntingly beautiful prints from Urban Exploration New York: A Walk on the High Line depict the famous High Line as it was before it was transformed into the amazing park it is today. Weeds and trash strewn about, graffiti tags lining the walls. Take a walk back in time. These prints will look great hanging on your wall or going with you with your iPhone!

These prints are available as the following products:

• Fine art print on natural white, matte, ultra smooth, 100% cotton rag, acid and lignin free archival paper using an advanced digital dry ink method to ensure vibrant image quality. Custom trimmed with 1″ border for framing.
• Framed fine art print on natural white, matte, ultra smooth, 100% cotton rag, acid and lignin free archival paper using an advanced digital dry ink method to ensure vibrant image quality.
• Fine art print on bright white, fine poly-cotton blend, matte canvas using latest generation Epson archival inks. Individually trimmed and hand stretched museum wrap over 1-1/2″ deep wood stretcher bars. Includes wall hanging hardware.
• iPhone Case: Protect your iPhone (fits all iPhone 4 and 4S versions) with a one-piece, impact resistant, flexible plastic hard case featuring an extremely slim profile. Simply snap the case onto your iPhone for solid protection and direct access to all device features.
• iPhone, iPad Skins and Laptop: Skins are thin, easy-to-remove, vinyl decals for customizing your device. Skins are made from a patented material that eliminates air bubbles and wrinkles for easy application.

Prints are available at my Society6 page, http://society6.com/vanshnookenraggen/

In the drop down menu at the top of this site there is a new link for the futureNYCSubway series. When you click on it you will be brought to a giant map of New York City with the current subway and proposed extensions. Everything which is on that map I’ve explained in previous posts and I hope to soon ad a feature where you can click on the map to visit a description of the line I propose.

An Explanation

I started doing research for this series about 5 years ago after completing my futureMBTA project. I made a few maps but I soon realized just how ambitious it would be to come up with a plan since New York’s subway system is so impressive and has such a byzantine history.

Many people, when I’ve shown them my ideas, usually express similar feelings: this is great but this will never happen. I don’t make plans with the idea that this is something that will happen, more that these are ideas that could, maybe even should happen, but ultimately these are ideas to inspire others of what might actually be possible. Of course there are so many factors which contribute to a project of this size, one look at the history of the Second Ave Subway tells the tale perfectly.

Too many people see these plans in the present context of the way things work in New York (city and state) and how the MTA runs the system. The MTA is a man made structure and is imperfect. This should not dissuade others from trying to push for something better. If subway expansion can not happen in the current political climate then how do we create a climate in which such expansion could be feasible?

Another perceived issue which comes up to thwart expansion is the seemingly immovable object known as the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). While it is true that much of the current system was built when the city was still farmland, this doesn’t mean that it is now impossible to build a subway. New highways in cities are much more disruptive than a subway or even a light rail line. While no one can deny that construction is a nuisance, it is a small inconvenience in the big picture (and these inconveniences can be mitigated with diligent public outreach).

My modus operendi for all subway expansion plans I have laid out in this plan is real estate development. Remember, while the subways were built to address crowding on the former elevated and streetcar lines in the city, the main goal was to open up new areas of the city for development. Much of the land which was opened up was owned by the very companies which were building the lines as a way of making once cheap, undesirable land closer to the city (commuting time), thus increasing the land’s value. The problem today is that there are no longer vast tracts of farm land open for development inside the reach of subways.

But, while we can no longer keep going out, we can keep going up. In the last decade New York City has seen an increase in population such that the city now has a higher population than ever before; this is something no other post-industrial city which saw massive population drain after World War II can say. Planners expect an increase in population of a million people in the next 20 years. Even with this current economic slump these numbers seem plausible. While the mayor has spent millions on making the city more livable, he has only laid a small foundation when it comes to preparing the city’s transportation infrastructure for 1 million new residents.

This isn’t to say Mayor Bloomberg hasn’t done anything, in fact he has one of the most impressive records in terms of transportation improvements in generations. The Second Ave Subway, the 7 Line Extension, the East Side Access project, and the new Hudson River rail tunnel are quite a staggering list of projects to start in 8 years and he is to be commended. But a closer look at these projects reveals a lack of foresight in these projects which may leave the transportation infrastructure bottlenecked in the not too distant future.

The 7 Line Extension does not contain space for a station at 41st St and 10th Ave, an area of the city which has seen extreme gentrification and massive new residential towers grow in the last decade. The Second Ave Subway is not being built with space for an express track system which, if it is ever fully built out, will leave the East Side of Manhattan (and presumably parts of the South Bronx) with less than adequate coverage (to compensate for the all-local subway planners have spaced stations further apart, creating a lose-lose situation for people living on the east side of Manhattan.)

What impressed me when I first read about the IND Second System (even the first system, too) was how ambitious and far-sighted it was. Money wasn’t as much of a factor in the design because it was more important to serve as much of the city as possible (which isn’t to say money was no factor at all; in fact the stark modernist stations with little decoration was the city’s way of cutting cost). Today subway plans are continually cut back or castrated due to cost to the point where they can cause overcrowding problems on trains or, conversely, stunt growth in areas where stations were cut for budgetary reasons. The Second Ave Subway is a perfect example of this lack of foresight.

Many words have been written over the last decade about the lack of ambitious, large scale transportation plans. We look to the other side of the world and see how China is building whole subway and train systems from scratch in the time it takes for out paperwork to get through the labyrinth of our bureaucracy. This, or course, is due mostly to the fact that after World War II cities let the bulldozers loose for one large, often Federally funded, project after another in the name of progress. These projects, housing projects, highways, and everything else under the banner of Urban Renewal, shocked the populous who rightfully fought back. But now we see that swinging the pendulum to the other side, away from centralized large scale developments, can create a quagmire in which nothing can get done, even projects with widespread support. The irony is that many of the protesters who fought against Robert Moses and the highway builders wanted more mass transit, but the outcome of this fight was that the very powers which were needed to build more mass transit have been retarded.

Unfortunately I am not here to try and fix these problems. In fact I don’t think I should, as an individual, try. The political system we have is by nature a bottom-up one (as opposed to China’s top-down). I truly feel that the bottom up approach is, ultimately, the better one. The problem is that it takes a long time for change to occur as it takes a long time for a seed to grow into a tree. Changing society to the point where large mass transit projects like the ones I’ve looked at throughout this series are possible will take a generation or two. That may even be a good thing since by then the growth and traffic (as well as other unforeseen problems) will probably reach a tipping point where new subway expansion becomes the only option. The worry is that by that time we don’t know if the power and resources will be available to save us.

I write that last bit with slight trepidation since it is important to keep in mind that every time a new transit project is proposed it’s proponents point to the terrible problems that will occur if the project is not built. All projects are cast in this light, it seems, so I don’t want this series to come off as some sort of high-minded cure for some future dystopia. Many, if not most, of the projects outlined here will never see the light of day and some probably shouldn’t. The city is ever changing and a project which looks great today might not be as beneficial in 25 years.

One last thing I need to address is that throughout this series I haven’t brought up the numbers; what will these expansion plans actually cost? I’m not an engineer and I haven’t the foggiest idea what the raw numbers would be. Much of the cost overruns from projects like the Second Ave Subway or Boston’s Big Dig came from relocating existing utilities, many of which were not on existing maps. Another major factor is that because these projects take so long to complete the cost of materials will fluctuate during construction. Inflation is another major factor, but one which needs to be taken into consideration especially when comparing a new project to a subway which was built 60 years ago. When factoring in inflation the billions it would cost to build the Second Ave Subway are not far off from original estimates from long ago.

Since I’m also not an economist I am not going to try to devise a solution to the numbers problem. Like I said, the point of this series was not to devise a plan which would get built but rather try to create a plan which would inspire those in power, those with the technical knowledge, to find solutions to the problems of building such a system. In the past we seemed to have understood how to do great things but today we can hardly balance a budget and keep roads paved. The Vanshnookenraggen Plan for the Future of the New York City Subway is a vision of what is possible when we put petty politics aside and work for the greater good.

the vanshnookenraggen plan

I’ve explained in detail all the different plans in past posts so now I want to tie them together into a comprehensive plan. If you are unfamiliar with an extension plan you can link back to the post. I have numbered the different plans in order of which ones could/should be built first.

1. The Second Ave Subway
   

   2nd Ave subway alternatives in lower Manhattan.

   The most obvious place to start since it is currently under construction, the Second Ave Subway project is today, as it is designed, short sighted. The full subway needs to be built with an express track with connections to the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges; a 2 track subway under Water St to connect with the IND Fulton St subway in downtown Brooklyn, a connection with the IND Queens Blvd Line, and three branches in the Bronx with a third express track.

   The Second Ave Subway is the most important expansion project the city could undertake. The subway is needed to relieve not only the IRT Lexington Ave Line but also relieve pressure from Queens and downtown Brooklyn. Connections to Brooklyn would allow existing trains to be diverted to Second Ave while allowing BMT Broadway and IND 6th Ave trains to run with more frequency.

   As part of the Second Ave Subway the IND Fulton St Subway in southern Queens should be extended as a 4 track subway from Gates Ave under Linden Blvd to the border with Nassau County. A new connection to the Rockaways would be built and the existing elevated tracks through Ozone Park would be demolished.

   Another key part of the Second Ave Subway would be a new crosstown subway under 125th St as an extension of the Q Train (which in the current plan would terminate at 125th-Lexington Ave). A 125th Crosstown Line was proposed in passing by the former CEO of the MTA as a future extension. This extension, to Broadway on the west side, has just as much potential as the rest of the Second Ave project and should be seriously considered in future plans.

2. Flushing Trunk Line
   

   Flushing Trunk Line through Queens Plaza and Sunnyside Yards.

   The fastest growing section of New York City in the last 20 years has been northwester Queens: Astoria, Elmhurst, Corona, Jackson Heights, and Flushing. This area is home to dense immigrant neighborhoods which are more transit dependent than other groups in the city. The area has very good housing stock but is under served by just the IRT Flushing Line 7 train and the IND Queens Blvd Line which swings south after Jackson Heights.

   A new subway, built with 2 local tracks at first but with provisions for a second pair of express tracks, could be one of the best mass transit investments in the nation in terms of dollars per rider. After the IRT Lexington Ave Line the lines which converge at Long Island City are the most congested in the entire system and with the continued population growth in Queens it is projected that these lines will become only more congested.

   The Flushing Trunk Line should be built to provide future expansion into College Point and eastern Queens as well as a future connection to a new crosstown subway in Manhattan. As part of this project the existing IRT Flushing Line 7 Train should be extended east to Bayside, Queens.

3. Bushwick Trunk Line
   

   Bushwick Trunk Line track map.

   It is difficult to recommend the Bushwick Trunk Line as just one entity since it is really six (6!) subways in one. In any other city a proposal of this size and scope would probably be all the city would ever need in terms of subways. Even cities in China which seemingly put up new subway systems overnight would see the Bushwick Trunk Line as a challenge. I’ll break it down into how I think the line should go about being built.

   • Phase 1

     A 6 track “shell” subway (a subway built so that new tracks can be added later) should be built from the Williamsburg Bridge under South 4 St to Union Ave to where there is an existing shell of a station. From here the 6 track “shell” subway would be built out to Myrtle Ave. For the time being only 4 tracks would be activated, a local and an express. The existing Broadway elevated tracks would be demolished from the bridge to Myrtle Ave. After Myrtle Ave the tracks would ascend to the surface and continue along the existing tracks along Myrtle Ave and Broadway.

   • Phase 2

     Extend 4 tracks from Myrtle Ave & Broadway under Myrtle Ave out to Fresh Pond Rd in Ridgewood. For the time being only 2 tracks would be used and the existing Myrtle Ave elevated tracks would be demolished (a connection to the Fresh Pond train yards would be constructed along the existing train tracks through Fresh Pond).

     

     Bushwick Trunk Line with alternative routings.

   • Phase 3

     Construct what is known as the Utica Ave Subway. Branching off the BMT Canarsie Line a 2 track subway under Bushwick Ave would connect with the lower level of the station at Myrtle Ave & Broadway. Past Myrtle Ave a 4 track subway would turn south along Reid Ave to Fulton St and then on to Eastern Parkway.

     After Eastern Parkway the subway would be extended south along Utica Ave to a point in Flatlands, Brooklyn (such as Flatbush Ave). At some point a new connection between Manhattan and Williamsburg would be needed to accommodate service along the Utica Ave Line. A subway under East Broadway or a branch off of the IND 6th Ave Line under East Houston St would travel under the East River to connect with the 6 track subway at South 4th St.

   • Phase 4

     Construct a branch off of the IND Crosstown Line (G Train) which would continue east along Lafayette St to Broadway where it would turn north to connect with the Myrtle Ave Subway. From Fresh Pond Rd the 4 track subway would be extended out to Queens Blvd in Kew Gardens, Queens and eventually further east along Union Turnpike. As traffic demands, the line would be extended further east to the border with Nassau County.

   • Phase 5

     Add a second tunnel under the East River and build out a 4 track subway under Bushwick Ave to Broadway Junction which would replace the existing Broadway elevated tracks.

4. Crosstown Manhattan & Trans-Hudson Lines
   

   10th Ave Subway and Crosstown alternatives.

   Currently the IRT Flushing Line (7 Train) is being extended west from Times Sq to 10th Ave and south to 34th St but like the Second Ave Subway project this extension is being built in a way which will hurt the city in the future. A station at 10th Ave was discarded due to budget cuts and is an example of the totally backwards (e.g. suburban) way that transit planners/city officials are thinking about this project. A new station is being built in an area where no development will get off the grown for years to come but a station was cut for an area with an existing commuter base and massive new developments already under construction or open.

   I am placing a new crosstown subway this low on the priority list because development on the Far West Side will take so long. A new subway under 50th St from 10th Ave to Long Island City will take pressure off of existing subways in Long Island City and bring commuters directly into the midtown Central Business District. A similar line was planned in the 1960s and 70s but budget problems killed the project. Eventually this line should be connected with the BMT 14th St-Canarsie Line to create a loop through the Far West Side, but this is dependent on new traffic from developments like the Hudson Yards which are years away.

   As for new subway lines crossing the Hudson River into New Jersey, these are complicated by jurisdictional problems. If these can be overcome them the best options for new trans-Hudson subway service would be along the George Washington Bridge and an extension of the IRT Flushing Line into Hoboken and Jersey City, NJ.

5. Staten Island Subway
   

   Brooklyn connections to a subway to Staten Island

   While it would be faster to build a new line either under the harbor or through Bayone, NJ, it would ultimately be cheaper to build an extension of the BMT 4th Ave Line or of the IND Culver Line. A branch of the Culver Line was proposed in the IND Second System and would be the best option in terms of cost and capacity. The Culver Line has an unused express track which could be activated so that commuters could quickly travel from Staten Island to downtown Brooklyn and midtown Manhattan. A direct route from Staten Island to downtown Manhattan would bypass a potential employment destination in downtown Brooklyn (which today is most easily reached by car). A Culver Line extension would also allow for easy transfers to 8th Ave trains at Jay St and would allow the most flexibility in terms of routing.

   On Staten Island itself I would recommend building a new subway through the center of the northern side of the island. Some plans have called for converting the Staten Island Railroad to subway clearances but I feel like it (the SIRR) works fine as it is now and that a new subway, perhaps along Victory Blvd or Forest Ave. This, however, would not be needed for some time to come and a subway terminal around St. Georges Ferry Terminal would suffice until commuting patterns justify an extension.

   Besides a new subway, the North Shore of the Staten Island Railroad should be reactivated, either with existing rolling stock or with light rail.

6. TriboroRX and Atlantic Ave Super-Express
   

   The Atlantic Ave Super-Express through Broadway Junction.

   The Triboro Rx travels against established commuting patterns to the point where ridership would be so low that a better investment would be to build an at grade road along the line for buses and trucks. However, I have included a complete Triboro Rx in my final plans since at some time in the future such a line may be needed and so the right-of-way should be kept up since it is too invaluable as a transit corridor not to consider. Because the line cuts through so many different parts of the city it could, conceivably, be built in sections where traffic demands (such as a crosstown shuttle in the south Bronx).

   The Atlantic Ave Super-Express Line would be a better project since it runs along established commuting patters but it would also cut back LIRR capacity and run parallel existing subway service. The benefit to such a line would be for better expansion of subway service into Jamaica since existing lines would make such a commute painfully long. The Atlantic Ave Super-Express would also allow for the existing elevated tracks through eastern Brooklyn to be demolished and replaced with faster service, both local and express, into the city.

The futureNYCSubway

1. Introduction
2. IND Second System
3. Post War Expansion
4. The Second Ave Subway: History
5. The Second Ave Subway: To The Bronx and the Nassau Line
6. Brooklyn: Bushwick Trunk Line
7. Manhattan: West Side and Hudson Crossings
8. Queens: Flushing Trunk Line
9. Staten Island: The Last Frontier
10. TriboroRX and Atlantic Ave Super-Express
11. Conclusion: the vanshnookenraggen plan

History of Franklin Ave Shuttle

Franklin Ave Line in 1920 , 1924, and 1951.

The Franklin Ave Shuttle has quite an interesting history. Like with the many of the subways in Brooklyn the line started off as a steam railroad to bring people to Coney Island in the summers. The Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railway was born in 1878 and ran from the Long Island Railroad terminal at Flatbush Ave to the former Bedford Terminal (long since demolished now), then made a 90 degree turn south and cut it’s way through that glacial moraine that runs through the center of Long Island (the slope in Park Slope, the heights in Crown Heights), popping out just past Flatbush Ave. From here the line ran straight to Brighton Beach along the very same right-of-way that the BMT Brighton Beach B and Q trains take (the line was originally built at grade and eventually expanded and grade separated as this section of Brooklyn began to develop).

In 1899 the line was rebuilt and connected to the Fulton St elevated train which ran along Fulton St to the Brooklyn Bridge. This allowed passengers a direct link to downtown Manhattan. This connection didn’t last long as in 1920 the subway under Flatbush Ave was built out to the Prospect Park station and even quicker subway service began running to Brighton Beach. The Franklin Ave line still ran to Fulton St over the elevated track for 8 more years until the Fulton St elevated line was closed and replaced by the current subway, the IND Fulton St A and C trains. Interestingly service still ran between Brighton Beach and the new truncated Franklin Ave station at Fulton St until 1963 when the current shuttle service was born.

Franklin Ave Shuttle Extension from Fulton St to Lafayette Ave.

In 1999 the entire shuttle line was rebuilt with new stations. The original line was two tracks with stations at Fulton St, Dean St, Park Pl, and Consumers Park (rebuilt as Botanical Gardens). Due to the short distance between Dean St and Park Pl stations the Dean St station was completely demolished. The line now runs mostly on one track, from Franklin Ave to Park Pl, then two tracks to Prospect Park.

Source: BMT Franklin Ave Line

Although the line is not that heavily used it does provide an important connection for commuters coming from southern Brooklyn to the subways coming from eastern Brooklyn. If you are commuting, say, from Midwood, and you want to connect to the A or C train, the only other connection possible would be to transfer at DeKalb Ave to the R train, take that one stop to Jay St-Metro Tech, and transfer again. Keep in mind that this transfer only opened in February 2011. To transfer to the IRT 2,3,4, or 5 trains, someone coming from southern Brooklyn would need to change at Atlantic Terminal, not that convenient given how large and disconnected that station is. Because of the legacy of three different companies competing against one another, transfers are difficult or non existent in the case of the IRT and IND lines in Brooklyn. Where do you switch from the 4 train to the A train? In Manhattan only. Another legacy is that of Manhattan-centric service patterns. The subway system is geared more towards people commuting into and out of Manhattan every day than from Brooklyn to Queens (or another borough). Ask anyone who lives along the G train and they will tell you how inconvenient it is.

Interestingly, transit planners have long seen the potential of using the Franklin Ave right-of-way as it parallels both Bedford and Nostrand Avenues, both important north-south thoroughfares. As far back as 1922 when the city first proposed building it’s own subway system (back then there were only two private, competing systems, the IRT and BMT) there were plans to utilize this small section of track. What today is known as the IND Crosstown Line G train had a much grander origin.

From NYCSubway.org

Brooklyn Crosstown Line

The so-called Brooklyn Crosstown Line was originally projected as an elevated [line] when the dual system was laid out, but its construction was deferred because of local objection to elevated construction, and because of the fact that the city’s resources for the more expensive alternative of subway building had been exhausted. It is the opinion of the [Transit] Commission that the line should be built as a subway without further delay; first, as a means of articulating all of the rapid transit lines at present traversing Brooklyn and Queens, so that any one of these can be reached conveniently and quickly from any other one; second, as a means of access to the shore front of Brooklyn and Queens north of the Navy Yard; and third, as a direct means of carrying passengers from Manhattan and Queens to Brooklyn and Coney Island without traversing the congested district of lower Manhattan.

Such a line will tend further to decentralize traffic by building up another prosperous business thoroughfare north and south in Brooklyn, and will save the Queens traffic bound for Brooklyn from a long detour through Manhattan. Through Long Island City the line will follow Jackson Avenue, one of the widest and most important thoroughfares in the business section of Queens.

Through the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn, it will follow Manhattan Avenue, the principal business street of that section, and thence through Roebling Street, Williamsburgh, and by the cutting of a new street, of about three blocks in length, from Roebling Street to Bedford Avenue, to a connection with the Brighton Beach Line at Fulton Street and Franklin Avenue. In its progress it would furnish points of transfer to the stations of all the other lines it would intercept-the Broadway, Myrtle and Lexington Avenue elevated lines, and the 14th Street-Eastern subway.

The Commission has also in view a further connection between this line by way of Flushing Avenue or Park Avenue and Jay and Smith Streets, to the Borough Hall section of Brooklyn. At some future time, no doubt, it will also be desirable to connect the northern end of the line directly with the Astoria branch of the Queensborough System, thence into Manhattan at 125th Street and across 125th Street to Fort Lee Ferry.

The estimated cost of the line as now proposed is $24,000,000, and the time to complete from three to three and one-half years.

NEW SUBWAYS: Proposed Additions to Rapid Transit System to Cost $218,000,000; 1922

The proposed crosstown subway would have run from Coney Island to Harlem via Bedford-Stuyvesant, Greenpoint, Long Island City, and Astoria. The subway was eventually built was far less grand and ultimately poorly designed as it runs a serpentine path through Brooklyn into Long Island City (it once ran out to Forest Hills but was service was cut back to Court Sq, Long Island City in 2001). The IND Crosstown Line was built, almost completely, as a two track local service. That is except for one small section between the Classon Ave station and the Bedford-Nostrand station. Here, for seemingly no reason, there exists a third center track which runs past Bedford-Nostrand under Lafayette Ave and splits into two tracks, quickly dead-ending at Marcy Ave.

There are two good theories for this: first, much like with many other parts of the IND system, many sections were built out to allow for further extensions and new lines. A subway from downtown Brooklyn to Bushwick under Lafayette Ave had been on the planning boards since the original subway was extended into Brooklyn in 1905. In the 1930s the city was building a line from Brooklyn to Queens along Lafayette Ave and left provisions for an easy extension. Second, the third track allows for quick layups for trains in the event of construction or for storage. The MTA does this from time to time where service will only run from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Bedford-Nostrand due to track work further down the line.

This extra single track now allows for an ingenious new connection, the purpose of this post. The plan would to rebuild the Franklin Ave Shuttle as a subway from just past Botanical Gardens (where it runs along an elevated track) to Fulton St and then extending it to Lafayette Ave (with a new station at Gates Ave) turning east and merging into the current IND Crosstown Line using the existing middle track. This short connection would finally allow commuters to connect to the IND Crosstown Line without having to first go all the way to downtown Brooklyn and allow for commuters on the IRT Eastern Parkway Line to connect to the IND Fulton St and Crosstown Lines.

Franklin Ave Shuttle track map showing the current set up and the proposed extension. Not to scale.

This new subway would be at first built with just one track but with space for a second. At Gates Ave there would be two tracks and an island platform to allow for shuttle trains to pass one another. The current Franklin Ave Shuttle runs a quick route with only two train cars. The new stations would be built for four cars but space would be provided to allow for easy expansion to six cars. This way if the service proved successful then a second track could be added and it would be feasible to run subway trains from Coney Island up to Long Island City (and further out to Forest Hills). At first, though, the line would still run as just a shuttle service from Prospect Park station to Bedford-Nostrand.

Current Bus Rapid Transit Plans

Proposed BRT routes in Brooklyn. Light Blue is the Bedford Ave-Nostrand Ave BRT Line.

At first glance you might wonder why it would make any sense to connect two lines with some of the lowest ridership in the entire system with a new subway. Like I mentioned before, these lines parallel the main north-south arteries of central Brooklyn, Bedford Ave and Nostrand Ave. These two avenues are some of the few roads which span the entire borough, from Sheepshead Bay in the south to Greenpoint in the north. They serve as a backbone for many of the communities through which they run. A subway connection along this route was proposed almost a century ago and the growth since then has only made improved rapid transit more desirable.

The city is currently experimenting with the idea of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), buses which run in their own dedicated lanes and have pre-paid boarding systems designed to speed up service. Already these buses are running across the northern Bronx and along 1st and 2nd Aves on the east side of Manhattan. While mostly a success (not without some initial adjustment time by locals) the next BRT line proposed along Bedford and Nostrand Aves have come up against stiff resistance. Unlike the more transit dependent east side of Manhattan, this section of Brooklyn has developed without good subway access and many more people drive. The new bus lanes would take away many parking spaces along their route and this has business owners up in arms.

A true BRT system spanning Brooklyn from Greenpoint to Sheepshead Bay would cost only a few million dollars (full: dedicated lanes, pre-payment systems, camera enforcement, marketing) and no one would imagine that a new subway, however short, would be that cheap. But extending the Franklin Ave Shuttle may still be a more viable alternative. The extension would connect southern Brooklyn with northern Brooklyn using mostly existing tracks and rights-of-way. Construction would only impact a small section of the city. Even with the extra transfers, going by subway would still be faster than a bus, even a bus with less stops. While buses are more flexible than trains, a complete subway connection would do more to facilitate north-south travel than a bus would.